King v. Chilcott (In re K.J.K.)
| Decision Date | 08 September 2020 |
| Docket Number | DA 20-0080 |
| Citation | 401 Mont. 204,2020 MT 224,472 P.3d 155 |
| Parties | IN RE the Parenting of K.J.K., n/k/a K.J.C.: Doreen and James King, Petitioners and Appellants, v. Kenley (King) Chilcott and Brian Chilcott, Respondents and Appellees. |
| Court | Montana Supreme Court |
For Appellants: Marcia Birkenbuel, Attorney at Law, Great Falls, Montana
For Appellees: Lucy Hansen, Judnich Law Office, Missoula, Montana
¶1 Appellants, Doreen and James King (Grandparents), appeal a January 6, 2020, order from the Ninth Judicial District Court, Pondera County, terminating a 2013 Stipulated Parental Agreement (Agreement) which had afforded Grandparents contact and visitation rights with respect to their grandchild, K.J.C.1 In its order, the District Court granted a motion to terminate the Agreement which was filed by Appellees, Kenley Chilcott (Mother) and Brian Chilcott (Father), who are the biological mother and adoptive stepfather of K.J.C., respectively. We affirm the District Court's decision to terminate the Agreement.
¶2 We restate the dispositive issues on appeal:
¶3 Grandparents are the maternal grandparents of K.J.C. Mother and Father are the daughter and son-in-law, respectively, of Grandparents. Mother gave birth to K.J.C. in December 2011, when she was twenty-one years old. Mother and K.J.C. resided with Grandparents in Conrad, Montana, until October 2012, when Mother left her parents’ home and moved to Williston, North Dakota with K.J.C.
¶4 On January 22, 2013, Grandparents filed a petition for a parental interest determination, alleging they had established a child-parent relationship with K.J.C. as defined under § 40-4-211(6), MCA, and were thus entitled to the commencement of a parenting proceeding under § 40-4-211(4)(b), MCA. Mother filed a response which denied Grandparents’ assertion of a child-parent relationship and contended that there was no reason to award Grandparents a parental interest as Mother had "cared for her minor child his entire life" and had "never ceded her exclusive parenting authority or allowed [Grandparents] to function in a parental role."
¶5 On July 25, 2013, following mediation, the parties signed the disputed Agreement which expressly provides as its purpose: "The parties realize that extended family contact is important to the child and this agreement is to set out an organized system to facilitate this contact." The Agreement stipulated that "[t]he minor child shall reside with [Mother]" but awarded Grandparents weekly telephone contact with K.J.C. and provided a visitation schedule. This visitation schedule granted Grandparents the right to have K.J.C. visit them in Conrad once every sixty days for a period of five days—which included travel—and also gave them the right to electively schedule shorter visits with K.J.C. in Williston "no more than 4 times per year" on the condition that Mother would also be present in Williston at those times. The Agreement granted Mother authority over all "[m]ajor [d]ecisions" involving K.J.C. Although the Agreement authorized both parties to make "emergency health care decisions" for K.J.C. while he was in each party's care, the Agreement also stated that the "Mother shall make decisions regarding the day-to-day care and control of the minor child including all medical decisions." The Agreement provided the parties would review the visitation schedule the summer before K.J.C. entered kindergarten—and undergo mediation if necessary—in order to provide Grandparents with a revised visitation schedule that was better suited to K.J.C.’s future school schedule. The Agreement also required Mother to provide Grandparents with information about K.J.C.’s future report cards, teacher names, and extracurricular activities once he started school.
¶6 On July 30, 2013, the District Court issued an order which approved and adopted the Agreement. The language of this order provided:
On August 2, 2013, two days after the District Court issued the above order, Grandparents filed a "Notice of Entry of Judgement." The notice provided that "on the 30th day of July, 2013, the Court entered a Final Judgment awarding [Grandparents] a parental interest, a copy of which is herewith served."
¶7 In 2014, Mother and Father were married. Mother and Father own a home together in Williston where they currently reside with K.J.C.; their daughter, age 4; and Father's son from a prior marriage, who is the same age as K.J.C. On December 7, 2015, Father legally adopted K.J.C. in a proceeding in North Dakota's Williams County District Court. This same adoption proceeding also terminated the parental rights of K.J.C.’s biological father, Vincent Taylor. In 2016, Vincent challenged this ruling in the North Dakota Supreme Court. In In re Adoption of K.J.C. , 2016 ND 67, 877 N.W.2d 62, the North Dakota Supreme Court upheld the termination of Vincent's parental rights and Father's adoption of K.J.C. The record indicates that Grandparents traveled to North Dakota in order to testify against Father in this 2016 custody dispute, even though Grandparents were not a party to these proceedings. Later in 2016, Grandparents filed a motion for contempt against Mother in District Court for allegedly failing to adhere to the Agreement governing their visitation rights. Father has since testified that Grandparents filed this contempt motion in response to Mother's refusal to allow her parents to visit with K.J.C. while they were present in North Dakota to testify against Father in his legal proceedings to adopt K.J.C.
¶8 On May 17, 2019, Grandparents filed an additional contempt motion requesting that the District Court enforce the parties’ Agreement. Grandparents’ motion and supporting affidavit alleged that they had not visited K.J.C. since June of 2018 and that Mother had purposefully failed to comply with their "Parenting Plan." Mother requested mediation pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, which required mediation in the event the parties were unable to agree upon a revised visitation schedule once K.J.C. started to attend school. Mediation of this dispute occurred on June 28, 2019, but the parties did not reach an agreement.
¶9 Following the parties’ unsuccessful mediation attempt, Mother filed a motion to join her husband as a necessary party pursuant to M. R. Civ. P., Rule 19. Grandparents objected to Father's joinder as a party. The District Court granted Mother's motion and joined Father as a necessary party, citing Father's legal relationship with K.J.C. as the child's adoptive father.
¶10 On July 2, 2019, Grandparents filed a motion to approve a revised "Parental Contact Schedule" which Grandparents had created unilaterally. Grandparents’ revised schedule requested that K.J.C. visit them for one month during each summer and provided for a visit during K.J.C.’s winter and spring breaks from school. On September 24, 2019, Mother and Father responded by filing a motion to terminate the 2013 Agreement, to which Grandparents objected.
¶11 The District Court held a hearing on November 6, 2019. Mother and Father testified that the Agreement had taken a large emotional toll on their family and adherence to the Agreement had become overly burdensome for their family. Father testified that he and Mother had, thus far, made twenty trips to Montana under the Agreement—each of which required them to travel to a meeting spot in Montana that was eight hours away from their North Dakota home. Father also testified that he and Mother had to take multiple days off from work during each of K.J.C.’s court-mandated visits, during which they were also required to find childcare for their two other children. Father further testified that he and Mother would still like to offer Grandparents visits with K.J.C. in the future, but that they wished to do so outside the confines of the legal system and in a way that works better for their family.
¶12 Mother and her brother, Calen King (Calen), also each testified that they were concerned about K.J.C.’s safety when he was in Grandparents’ care, largely due to Grandmother's excessive drinking and erratic behavior. Calen testified that he believed both of his parents have mental health and chemical dependency issues. Calen also testified regarding multiple instances where he felt Grandmother, while intoxicated, acted in a verbally abusive manner and threatened violence against him; with one of these instances occurring in June 2018 in the presence of K.J.C. Calen's testimony further noted that he suffered from anxiety and depression, which he attributed to his upbringing.
¶13 Mother testified about her mental health issues and stated that she was "trying to recover from her childhood" with Grandparents. Mother's testimony recalled that she was forced to go to Shodair Children's Hospital when she was fifteen years old and left with a diagnosis of depression. Mother further testified that she felt Grandmother's drinking had gotten out of hand. During visits to Grandparents’ home, Mother stated that she had observed Grandmother passed out on the...
To continue reading
Request your trial